I've been feeling the same way, that Apple is more interested in things not desktop, my first whiff of that idea was when MacAddict became MacLife to give attention to all the mobile devices. Macworld suffered the same misdirection. My computer is my only computing device. I have a cheap flip phone that I carry for emergencies, no pads, and a pod I never use anymore. I'm afraid that the PC will suffer the same fate. Old school desktop Video gamers will become a niche market, while $6 games like Diner Dash drive the market. I fear for the future of our young. Actually I'm just kidding, screw those guys, I fear for the future of Desktop video gaming.

I've been feeling the same way, that Apple is more interested in things not desktop, my first whiff of that idea was when MacAddict became MacLife to give attention to all the mobile devices. Macworld suffered the same misdirection. My computer is my only computing device. I have a cheap flip phone that I carry for emergencies, no pads, and a pod I never use anymore. I'm afraid that the PC will suffer the same fate. Old school desktop Video gamers will become a niche market, while $6 games like Diner Dash drive the market. I fear for the future of our young. Actually I'm just kidding, screw those guys, I fear for the future of Desktop video gaming.

Yeah!

I have a net10 flipphone too. Been paying a wopping $10/mo for anywhere cell phone calls. Beats a land line, and beats those over priced 'data plan' smart phone deals that bleed one dry of all funds meant for buying computer games with.

Apple certainly has done nothing to entice me to buy a mac again Kind of sad... I was such a pro mac dude, and felt the macs were the way of the future. Then, well ... OS X came about, and then hardware was left behind for gadgets and tom foolery nonsense. Meh.

-Fm [1oM7]
"I'm not incorruptible, I am so corrupt nothing you can offer me is tempting." - Alfred Bester

I'm afraid that the PC will suffer the same fate. Old school desktop Video gamers will become a niche market, while $6 games like Diner Dash drive the market. I fear for the future of our young. Actually I'm just kidding, screw those guys, I fear for the future of Desktop video gaming.

Don't worry about that one; PC gaming is actually on a pretty serious uptick. Why Phil Spencer's trying to push the Microsoft dinosaur to take PC gaming a lot more seriously the past couple years.

I'd agree that desktop computer gaming is not going anywhere. Nothing else delivers the kind of power desktops can. Nothing else can be upgraded to add life to one's initial outlay at an ultimately reasonable cost over time the way they can either. Lastly I don't think any other platform delivers the kind of overall capability and flexibility that a decent desktop system can. Oh, and then of course there is the entire issue of input flexibility also.

As for Macs, I think rumors of their demise are greatly overstated by some. It is still a sizable profit center. Being a small slice of a pie as big as Apple's does not mean that slice is not valuable to the company also. It is generally the most demanding users and advanced users who become most impatient with the kind of stagnation seen in Mac hardware development in recent years. I think more than half of Apple's computer consumers are not particularly aware of which processor is what and don't play demanding video games so for them, the stagnation is not such a big deal as it is unlikely they'd buy a system until their present one is pretty obsolete, as in a new OS update is not supported then driving sales of replacements, etc.

This wouldn't be news to anyone here but it bears repeating that one of Apple's major problems is not really of their doing for now at least and that is Intel not delivering the goods they need to upgrade the kind of systems they make. It is for this reason I believe Apple is going to go ARM on their desktops in the future and bring chip development for everything they make in-house. I would not be at all surprised to see Apple migrate to 100% in-house for chip development upcoming and end their dependence on outside vendors for processors which has certainly hurt them here and hurt them before in the PPC era. I could be wrong of course but I am inclined to think that this is what is coming from Apple. Not only that but I think it will turn out to be a good thing and I don't see it negatively affecting gaming on Macs but it will change it at first of course.

I need to do a lot more reading to have any opinion on where Intel may seem to be going in the future but just a cursory understanding of what is going on tells me they hit a wall some time ago with X86 architecture and so I wonder if their plans don't include future ARM processors as well.

I saw an article the other day indicating that next year's iPads may offer more computing power than current Macs do. Of course, that was a Johnny Evans article in Computerworld which means I didn't click the link bait to see if there was any substance to his reports because while he seems a very nice guy and does sometimes share interesting news and tips, like the whole of Computerworld well, it would take too long. Anyway, I know he is another one who believes ARM is coming.

Change is a drag initially but if you wind up with goodness on the other side, it can be well worth it. I think Apple having control over processor development and supply would be good for Apple and their customers over time. It would also open up new possibilities for system redesigns. What modern computing really needs is high power GPUs that are small and run very cool. There isn't any such thing today really, as I am meaning the kind of power it will take years (possibly many) to design and implement. It's just a matter of time though and sometimes I think Apple is fine with biding time while the lion's share of their business can easily carry slow desktop computer sales.

I also think Tim Cook's recent vague comments about upcoming Macs is a positive thing indicating clearly that they are not planning to abandon them by any means despite having been slow to release updates in recent years of any significance if at all depending on the model.

Macs are still and will continue to be a very important part of Apple's business even as a small slice of the overall pie. All the slices matter.

Yes, x86 has many issues but there’s an arbitrary discrimination happening here. Apple could invest in x86 chip design. They always could’ve done so, since the first Intel Macs. Was using Intel’s chips ultimately a stopgap measure until ARM matured? Are there abandoned blueprints for an Apple x86 chip somewhere in Apple’s labs?

No, Apple could not do that. Intel and AMD (and the minuscule VIA) are the only companies with an x86 license. No one else can make x86 chips unless Intel gives them the license. Even AMD, who is the obvious number 2 x86 manufacturer behind Intel, loses their x86 license if the company changes ownership. Intel has a rock solid monopoly on x86 chips and only allows AMD to get some scraps from the table to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.

The only scenario in which Apple could start developing their own x86 chips is if they bought Intel.

No, Apple could not do that. Intel and AMD (and the minuscule VIA) are the only companies with an x86 license. No one else can make x86 chips unless Intel gives them the license. Even AMD, who is the obvious number 2 x86 manufacturer behind Intel, loses their x86 license if the company changes ownership. Intel has a rock solid monopoly on x86 chips and only allows AMD to get some scraps from the table to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.

The only scenario in which Apple could start developing their own x86 chips is if they bought Intel.

It actually goes both ways. X86-64 was almost entirely pioneered and is owned by AMD. Without the cross-liscensing agreement, Intel couldnt produce 64-bit chips at all (several of the foundational technologies are AMDs outright). And the loss of liscensing goes both ways, if Apple bought Intel, Intel would automatically lose access to all of the cross liscencing.

Basic argument is 100% true, though. Apple cant do their own X86 development. Only AMD and Intel can, basically.

As for them going ARM? Highly unlikely unless ARM makes some real leaps and bounds on IPC and single-thread performance. X86 crushes ARMs best on IPC without breaking a sweat.

As for them going ARM? Highly unlikely unless ARM makes some real leaps and bounds on IPC and single-thread performance. X86 crushes ARMs best on IPC without breaking a sweat.

Agreed. Of course, with management at the helm anything's possible, but from an engineering standpoint a move back to a cut down version of Power would make way more sense than a move to ARM at this point. And that wouldn't make much sense either except maybe on a Mac Pro aimed to bleed a little of the low end of big iron budgets from scientific concerns or big data crunchers.

When it comes to Apple, we are talking about a company that refers to iPads as PC replacements and is not exactly performance oriented on the desktop but they are very much into designer looks, small and thin, coke can (workstations?), etc.

I have no trouble at all thinking Apple will produce iMacs and MacBooks driven by ARM processors myself if they'll run iWork apps and consumption apps well, etc. although I'd be very hesitant to try and pin down a time frame for that. If it is true that the next iPads will have processing power even similar to present iMacs then why wouldn't they be thinking about a move to ARM? It isn't like ARM processors will not continue to be improved with time as they have been so far. My iPad Pro with a retina display while admittedly small runs like greased lightning with Microsoft Office apps and everything else. So how much of a stretch is it really for this to become capable for desktops which Apple does not particularly seem to care about being high performance systems.

There is a place for high performance systems of course but a lot of people don't need them and it seems like those are the people who are Apple's primary customers really. I think we as a group tend to see things from a "power user" for lack of a better term, point of view whereas Apple clearly does not cater to users like ourselves and the very best evidence of that is a coke can MacPro that has not seen an update in over three years now is it? One system and no improvements to it for years. I think that pretty well says it all myself. So I can see them adopting ARM down the road when it is "good enough" in their view. Good enough does not need to compete with Windows PCs. Apple has already dropped the ball there in a big way but they still sell because again, not everyone needs the same amount of processing power and also a lot of people do assign value to things like looks, thin, weight, etc. whether we happen to or not.

Both CPU and GPU performance are fine on my 6s and Air 2. Games play great, apps run great, they fit in my man purse great. I personally use these devices magnitudes more than my computers. Obviously at work my job is macintosh specific but even there we are rolling out A BICUBIC popsnizzleTON of iOS devices so that focus may change in the future.

Apple switching to ARM CPU's for their whole product line makes sense from an Apple exec's perspective (cheaper, they control everything, etc.), but I doubt it's going to happen.

The more likely scenario in my opinion is that the iPad Pro will continue to receive timely updates and the marketing push and the Mac will be relegated as a back bench product (similar to the iPod now). At some point in the future they will simply discontinue the Mac, and be iOS only.

The more likely scenario in my opinion is that the iPad Pro will continue to receive timely updates and the marketing push and the Mac will be relegated as a back bench product (similar to the iPod now). At some point in the future they will simply discontinue the Mac, and be iOS only.

I wasn't alive when the Apple II was around, but I think the comparison is ludicrous.

Man

Sneaky Snake, on 13 October 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

The more likely scenario in my opinion is that the iPad Pro will continue to receive timely updates and the marketing push and the Mac will be relegated as a back bench product (similar to the iPod now). At some point in the future they will simply discontinue the Mac, and be iOS only.

Man you people are so depressing. The Mac will be fine. Yes, there are some inexcusable areas of neglect (Mac Pro, Mac Mini), and Apple should do a better job releasing timely spec bumps, but it's important to keep in mind a few things:

-The Mac is a mature platform. iOS, and in particular, the iPad, is not. Besides the revenue/user base reasons, it makes sense that Apple gives it more attention. I watch the OS X sections of WWDC with equal parts excitement and trepidation, because I am simultaneously
excited for new features but worried they will mess with what works. Sometimes popsnizzle just needs to be left alone.
-Intel's progress is slowing down, and they've suffered delays, so regular releases are less important/more out of Apple's hands than they used to be. Yes, the MBP is now more than a few chips out of date, but the end-user benefits are becoming increasingly harder to identify. It's quite plausible Apple decided to skip Broadwell for this reason, only to get caught in the Skylake delays.
-Apple tends to redesign the MBP about every four years. Later this year, it will be right on schedule.
-For iOS to remain healthy, that means iOS developers need to be happy. That doesn't mean abandoning the Mac and chucking Xcode on a MBP.

I read some posts here and I want to turn Amish, then I go to MacRumors and declare that Metal will not magically solve the performance discrepancy between OS X and Windows, and get accused of trolling. I need to make a website: themacisalright.com

Now, we want to specify the argument, and argue that the Mac Pro is the Apple II of our times...that I would wholeheartedly agree. Pro users who do video/audio/graphic design etc as their livelihood need to be able to rely on their chosen platform. And that means Apple needs to release machines regularly. It won't be enough for Apple to come out with a new Mac Pro next WWDC.
Even if it's redesigned with PCI slots, and Phil said, "We listened. We saw the hornets nest of wires you created. We made a mistake, and we needed time to fix it"--that will not mollify developers because Apple could very well leave it alone again for the next three years. They need to release updates anytime there's something new from Intel to throw into it.

The best anti-Mac argument I think you can make right now is that a computing platform needs a maintained "truck" computer at the top to be called truly healthy, but it is by no means at death's door.

I think the depression comes from the sheer lack of Mac updates. They still make billions from the Mac (more then they make from the iPad).

If they would have continued to update the various Mac product lines in a normal timeframe (every 9-15 months) then I would be extremely happy. As it stands I just had to purchase a new computer for work (old one tapped out) and I am forced to buy a machine that was last updated spring of 2015 (13" rMBP). Dell on the other hand has released TWO major upgrades for their XPS product line in that time (Upgraded the XPS 13 to Skylake in Fall 2015; and then upgraded the XPS 13 to Kaby Lake just a month or so ago). It is just depressing, and I'm not even talking about the Mac Pro.

Deep down I know this is just a temporary slump in updates, and we are going to see a re-design out soon, but god damn is it depressing to be a Mac user in 2016 (The singular Mac update was updating the new 12" Macbook to Skylake)

I hope some exec at Apple wakes up from the iOS koolaid and realizes that they are letting their extremely stable, billion-dollar-revenue, product line stagnant because they refused to even do minor updates to it. Hope those Emoji's in iOS 10 makeup for all of this